I recently read a paper placemat that had some information about bees on it. One of the points made there was the honeybee is the most successful of all animals of the earth in terms of longevity. The claim on the placemat was the honeybee has lived continuously as a species that has maintained its evolution without much modification longer than any animal on earth.

Now, if this is true, can someone here verify it? Or point me in the direction of a good site for verification?

You know, FB, it's just so dadburned frustrating. You read something on a placemat--sortof miffed with yourself for even reading it--and then you come across a fact (or factoid) that sticks in your brain more easily than the dozens of things that you really wanted to remember because they were so cool--things such as some of the words we read about here. I've got this horrible mental block, for instance, against tsuwm's adjective for "turkey-like." That word simply will not take root. But this factoid about honey bees being the oldest continuously living and unchanging animals on earth will stay completely stuck even though I wonder about the truth of it. And I'll end up spending all kinds of google hours trying to find out whether it's true. I would think there are some one-celled animals that are older than honey bees, for instance. Maybe the place mat left out something or several things.

What a stupendous idea, AnnaS! I will definitely do that. I'll report here if he responds. But how embarrassing to write:

Dear Dr. Professor:

I am interested in ascertaining whether a paper placemat correctly informed diners in the Dew Drop Inn about the honey bee's species having been on earth, virtually unchanged, longer than any other animal. Just a quick "yes" or "no" would satisfy me, but if you'd also like to mention the name of the animal species that does hold the record, so much the better.

i don't know, but i think horse shoe crabs are old, and unchanged over eons... since water based animals tend to be older than land, and creepy, crawly things older than flying things, i thing the cockroach might also be a contender for older.

still bees are pretty old, and found in amber, even dinosaurs liked honey... and words for bees and honey are old too, going back to IE (well not english's word, honey but most languages..) a word that always has a Mand vowel, and sometimes a D or a L-- Mead (honey wine) come from the same root, but so does Melissa, and Mele (czech as recall for honey, but spanish is closer to Mead-- what is it connie? mede? and Melittis (as in diabedes-- that was done not too long ago.. you could look it up)

honey naturally is pretty antiseptic, and resist most molds. but i think mildew is one of few fungus that can infect honey. (botullism is an other bacterium that also can survive in honey-- barely, there is usually not enough to hurt adults, but children have been effected by the botullism toxin)

With regard to toxic honey, there is also a long history. One of theearliest references comes from the writings of the Greek Xenophon(approx. 400 B.C.) who described the effects of soldiers eating a toxichoney. The incident occurred in what is now Turkey. The soldiers werereturning to Greece from a campaign in the Persian Empire, encountered thehives and robbed them of their honey. Xenophon indicated that thesoldiers who consumed the honey lost thier senses, and were inflicted with"vomiting and purging". A later reference indicates that the honey ofthat region was also used against soldiers of the Roman army underPompey. The Heptakometes left jars of the honey along the roadside as a"tribute" to some of the advancing army. The soldiers who ate the honeylost their senses and were easily defeated by the Heptakometes. Thesource of this toxic honey in the Middle East is probably Rhondodendronponticum, although R. luteum could also be a source. A good reference tothe toxic honey of this region is Sutlupinar et al. 1993. Poisoning bytoxic honey in Turkey, Arch. Toxicol. 67:148-150.

yes, Dr bill, here is a site that has some info, http://hbd.org/brewery/library/HonD.html, rhodadendrum, and muntain laurel are especially toxic and honey can be too. but that is very different than botullism, (which is a anarobic bacteria, which is harmless, but the bacteria produces a toxin, that is harmful) and mildew, both of which can "infect" the honey.

the 'toxic honey' is a problems that comes from the nector used to make the honey.

Yes, AnnaS, I did see tsuwm's sweet reinforcement of that turkey word that makes me think of margarine and then my brain stops working. Anserine, avian, apian, even hircine stick in my head--but that margarine turkey word takes flight everytime I get close to it.

meleagrin? mealeagrin? I tell you one thing. I'm going to write it on my wrist today and use it with my kids at school about a hundred times, and then I dare that mealy-ol' margarine-like avian to fly away from me ever again!

Royal jelly scam:Royal jelly is the food of queens — not human monarchs, but Queen bees. It's actually a substance secreted from the glands in the heads of worker bees that's fed to bee larvae. After a few days, the larvae that have potential to develop into queenscontinue to be fed this nectar. Since queen bees are much bigger, live much longer, and are more fertile than all the other bees,this potion is believed by some to impart mystical qualities. In reality, royal jelly is comprised of 60 - 70 percent water, 12 - 15 percent protein, 10 - 16 percent sugars, and 3 - 6 percent fats, with vitamins, salts, and free amino acids making up the rest.

People who are allergic to bees and honey, and those who have asthma, can face real dangers if they take royal jelly. Reactionsranging from bronchial spasms, skin irritations, and asthma attacks, to more severe anaphylactic shock, and even death, have been reported from its ingestion. As with many supplements, pregnant and lactating women and small children need to refrain from using royal jelly. To be on the safe side, anyone with a compromised immune system also needs to beware.

So, what's all the buzz about royal jelly? This supplement has been taken for a host of ailments. In addition to its use as a general health tonic, people take royal jelly to:

Whew. What a list! Unfortunately, good evidence does not exist for any of these purported health claims. Although studies with rabbits and rats showed a reduction in their cholesterol levels, and some human trials found a lowering of the bad LDLcholesterol levels, these reports have not been published, so it is impossible to evaluate their validity. Seems like royal jelly is just a royal scam.

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.